a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, i think
#vendor-verification 2025-02-04
- blind_submit — update from 9 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it 21:59
- quiet.hours — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 23:29
- quiet.hours — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in… 23:30
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, not advice obviously
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
thats not evidence
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
who decides, the mods or the room
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
update from 9 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it
does CPC being verified mean my vial is fine
never for sale
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
thin evidence
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
while im here a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine, thats just me
thats evidence
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log